Opinion | Iran-US Conflict: A War Neither Side Can Win Easily

Last Updated:March 09, 2026, 14:06 IST

The United States at some stage would have to tone down its end state if the current situation continues.

Israel’s air strikes on Iran were expected. Moving two carrier battle groups, as also multiple aircraft at high cost, into the region cannot be solely for the application of pressure. While Middle Eastern nations claimed that they refused permission for the US to exploit their bases to target Iran, many pushed them to do so. The intent was to degrade Iranian capability and its economy to a level where it would no longer be a threat. Israel must also have insisted to the US that targeting Iran was a pre-requisite for accepting Trump’s Gaza peace plan.

The naval and air build-up did not go unnoticed by Iran. Despite talks progressing well, Iran prepared for the strikes. It had worked out its options. Ayatollah Khomeini was aware that he and his leadership were primary targets. The Ayatollah had therefore nominated a succession line with the intent of ensuring the survivability of the regime. Militarily, while it faced shortfalls in every sphere, it held the largest stockpiles of missiles and drones in the region. This was its primary means of retaliation.

Trump and Netanyahu believed that Iran would crumble once its top leadership was destroyed and they had based their plans on this. The reality is that no regime under threat would surrender meekly, especially when they are aware that they would be tried for human rights violations if they are overthrown. Also, the populace, despite all pressures, would unite against any aggressor, even one who calls for an uprising. Finally, the regime would aim to draw the entire region into conflict if its existence is at risk. It has nothing to lose. Pakistan warned during Operation Sindoor that it would use nuclear weapons, drawing in the entire South Asian region, if its survivability was at stake.

The IRGC, which was the main target of the ongoing strikes, is also aware that its members would be acted against if there was a regime change or an uprising. Alongside them were local militias which were tasked to crush any internal revolt. To ensure that the war continues despite strong military action, the government in Tehran had given broad directions to leaders of the IRGC in each province to act independently and target the Middle East based on their assessments.

Iran had a three-fold strategy. First, draw the region into conflict by engaging US allies in the region, aware that the US’s major effort would be towards ensuring the survivability of Israel. This would break alliances which existed in the region. This proved successful as many Arab nations accused the US of ignoring them while employing its resources to protect Israel.

The second aspect was to compel the West to use its finite reserves of air defence missiles to down Iranian drones and missiles. As these are exhausted, Iran would launch multiple waves to damage vital economic and oil targets in the region. If they were going to be pushed to the brink, they would pull down others who had plotted against them. Finally, it was to shut the Straits of Hormuz. If it does so, the global economy would falter.

The US has begun altering its end state. Initially Trump announced his end state as regime change, while Netanyahu insisted it was to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of War, mentioned in a press conference, post the commencement of conflict, that US aims “were to destroy Iran’s navy, its ballistic missile production, and its potential to produce a nuclear weapon". He denied it was a “democracy-building exercise".

Both he and Trump refused to rule out the use of boots on the ground. It is unlikely that the US would consider boots on the ground until the IRGC is made redundant and that would remain unknown for a long time. Iran’s response was unexpected. The US losing three aircraft in the initial stages of the war was attributed to friendly fire. This is unlikely as no Iranian aircraft flew in the region for Kuwaiti air defences to mistake them for Iranian aircraft. Admitting losses due to Iran’s response would be detrimental.

The role of Iran’s neighbours is also questionable. While Middle Eastern states denied that they permitted the use of their bases or airspace, many had approached the US secretly, pushing it to engage Iran, fearing its growing military power. Pakistan, which criticised Israel (avoiding mentioning the US) for strikes on Iran, permitted its airspace for US UAVs as also provided air bases for refuelling US ELINT aircraft.

Iran’s targeting of Middle Eastern bases is an indicator that they were aware of what these nations had done. It has also threatened Pakistan with retaliation for enabling the US to exploit its airspace and bases. Its proxies have also joined in missile strikes. The truth is that no one is neutral. Nations act on their self-interest and for the region, Iran was a power which had to be subdued.

The US commencing operations as also eliminating the head of state without UNSC sanctions indicates it has little respect for global institutions. This is not the first or the last time it will do so. How then can it morally blame Russia for invading Ukraine and China later for attacking Taiwan?

Chinese-manufactured air defence equipment failed yet again. It had failed in defending Pakistan and subsequently Venezuela, and the same happened once again. Neither China nor Russia can come to the aid of Iran as they do not have bases in the region. Neither will the US accept their mediation. All they can do is provide diplomatic support and criticise US actions. This means little to the US. Iran will have to fight alone for as long as it can.

The US knows that it is safe as Iran has no missiles which can reach the continent. However, it had not factored in internal dissent. The Trump administration is now in a bind. If it quits before a regime change or there are major losses in infrastructure and human lives in the Middle East, its actions will come under scrutiny. It cannot succeed without boots on the ground, which also runs the risk of larger loss of lives and a prolonged conflict. For Iran, just the recommencement of talks is victory.

The US too does not possess infinite resources to counter Iranian missile strikes. They would soon begin to run out. Iran has time on its hands, as long as its missile and drone storage and production units remain safe. Collateral damage and civilian casualties could make them lose local support.

Those who celebrated the death of Ayatollah Khomeini were Iranian citizens who had migrated abroad, while those who mourned were Shia Muslims who considered him a religious head. This is why there were protests in India and Pakistan, while celebrations took place in the West.

The US at some stage would have to tone down its end state if the current situation continues. It will be worth watching how it unfolds.

The author is a former Indian Army officer, strategic analyst and columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.

News opinion Opinion | Iran-US Conflict: A War Neither Side Can Win Easily

Read More